Monthly Archives: March 2004

Instapundit features a link today to an article by Judi McLeod asking What other goodies is Annan locking away in UN file cabinets?, and why the major media hasn’t covered the UN scandals more effectively, if at all.
I have one idea: the infallibility of the international system is a lynchpin of the modern mind. Note that much of the opposition to the War for Iraq, or Israel’s building of the fence, cites “international law” as some sort of axiom, and, therefore, the embodiment of that law cannot be questioned least the whole house of cards come tumbling down.
It is the job of intelligent individuals–and by that I mean those who can make up their minds somewhat independent of the opinions of others, and who can at least attempt to look at the facts in an objective matter–to try to change this meme. It is time for the world to realize that the UN is not living up to its charter, and has become a living mockery of justice. Either it shapes up, or it should ship out.

I haven’t mentioned it before, but I am lucky enough to be sitting in on a weekly class with Saad Eddin Ibrahim at Columbia University on what else but Democracy and the Middle East.
The point of this all is that Prof. Ibrahim has given me a challenge to present my vision for a democratic Middle East, and I thought that this would give me a good opportunity to post here a round-up of recent literature on Democratization of the Middle East. I will post both that and my paper in the coming days.

Responsibility lies with the Left for Sudan because the Left is quite simply the political movement that is supposed to be for the liberation of man, and for progress. I myself am a proud heir of the Left, in that I see liberty and freedom as inalienable rights, and I believe that societies should be held responsible for the way they treat their citizens.
Some people have pointed out to me that Bush is responsible for not saving the Sudanese, and I agree that he is partially so, but I do not expect him to be the savior of mankind. That’s not his ideological origin. Yes, he has become a “born-again” international Liberal, but his roots are in conservatism–which I think follows more of the dictum, to each his own.
Point is, if the Left cannot be expected to protest for the rights of the Sudanese such a short time after they claimed they protested for the rights of the Iraqis, who can? If the movement that proclaims itself to be the guardian of democracy and human rights does not step in to protect the helpless, who will? Yes, I hope Bush does lead the US into Sudan, but I expect the Left to push him to do so.

It is pretty clear why the US will not move on Sudan without International–or intense domestic–support. At a time when the Arab/Muslim world–and by this I mean the regimes ruling that portion of the world–is seething mad that the US moved against Saddam, and at a time when the support of the Arab world will make or break the successful creation of an Iraqi democracy, the US cannot afford to hurt its standing in the Arab/Muslim world further.
And, just as Iran and Libya defeated a resolution in the UN’s Human Rights Commission condemning the Sudanese practice of cross-amputation, the UN will certainly not move on Sudan for fear that it will, in the words of the Pakistani representative, be “an offense to all Muslim countries.” No matter that this is the umpteenth chance Kofi Annan will preside over an organization created in part to end genocide, and will do nothing.
So, what’s to do? The only chance the people of Sudan have is a US led NATO mission, one with Turkish soldiers at the front-lines to sooth over the nerves of the Arab/Muslim world. One that will not draw away US troops from Iraq, where they are needed for reconstruction. And for such a thing to happen, President Bush must be pressured from all sides–and especially from the very people who decry him in the name of Human Rights. This is the time to forgive the past in order for the people of the Sudan to have a future, and if President Bush does not move to save the people of the Sudan after those same people who claim to support free peoples everywhere have marched and shouted and protested, I will certainly be in the front lines with them protesting against this administration.

Nicholas Kristof is on the mark when he asks whether we will be saying “Never Again” to Sudan a few years down the line.
What I don’t understand is why I haven’t seen any rallies or protests by the Left, even though they rallied only last week around the war for Iraq. Yes, the cynical among us may think that it’s obvious the left wouldn’t care, but I truly believe that some of those people marching against the war really care about human rights–so why are they silent now?
It is simply proof of the Security Council’s impotency and irrelevance that they convene to condemn Israel in the assassination of one man that proudly admitted he led martyrs to paradise, and yet haven’t acted when genocide is carried out before their eyes.
If the global community doesn’t care, if the “world” is too busy mourning Saddam’s fall to see the suffering of the Sudanese, the US will have to step up to the plate. And it should be the left which pushes this move, supports it, and goes out to the streets if the administration does not follow through.

The Columbia Spectator has finally addressed the issue of the Said Donors, in a very balanced article by Chris Beam.
The article, while fair, could have dug a bit deeper into the way the Said Chair was created, the person who led the fundraising, and why it all came together the way it did. Chris could have certainly contacted me, seeing as how I am the only person on Columbia’s campus that has actually looked into these matters and written about them before in the Spectator–before I was fired, of course–but he chose not to. Too bad for the article; I might have given him some good leads.
One thing I am surprised about–and why I think that Chris is a great writer–is his quotation of Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer without the accustomed “conservative” or “pro-Israel” titles that have accompanied them in every other Spectator article. This paragraph is telling:

The release of names comes in the wake of accusations that the University’s failure to provide a level of transparency “points to the sense of guilt that they have that they are doing something this shady,” in the words of Campus Watch founder Daniel Pipes.
Pipes, who is also director of the Middle East Forum, called the information in the Record “too little, too late.”
“With the list now public, it is clear why Columbia University preferred not to disclose the donors’ identities,” a Campus Watch press release said.

I just hope that this represents a change in Spectator policy. But I doubt it.